Professional Documents
Culture Documents
but to execute the settlement agreement. Even assuming that Hohman's statement was a wrongful exercise of power, Gilbert fails to
establish that the settlement agreement prepared by Gilbert's union
representative was not on fair terms such that the threat was improper
under the Second Restatement. Under the terms of the settlement
agreement, Gilbert was demoted and transferred rather than terminated, Gilbert was permitted to keep his dog as a pet and the county
agreed to provide free veterinary care, and Gilbert agreed to drop his
prior grievances against the department. The terms provide at least
some benefit to both parties and cannot be deemed unfair.
Furthermore, even if the threat was improper, Gilbert fails to show
that he had no reasonable alternative but to execute the settlement
agreement. Hohman's alleged threat was merely a conditional statement that if the dog would not search with another handler, she would
be useless to the Department and destroyed. Clearly, Gilbert could
have declined to execute the settlement agreement and waited to see
if the dog would in fact refuse to search with another handler. Moreover, Gilbert may have been able to pursue a legal remedy to prevent
Hohman from killing the dog. Thus, Gilbert fails to establish duress
under the Second Restatement.
We find no reversible error and affirm the order of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
6